IMPORTANT POINT
The proceedings in the criminal case are not binding on the question of deficiency of service to be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora.

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member

Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) is to the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai Bench (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 441 and 522 of 2012 . By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Branch Manager and Regional Manager of the LIC Claims Department (hereinafter referred to as “LIC”) and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Tiruneveli (for short “the District Forum”) passed in CC No. 165 & 166 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed the Complainant to approach the Civil Court for settlement of the claim against LIC, if so desire.

2. As both the present Revision Petitions pertain to the same Life Assured and the respective Complainants are his father and mother respectively and the facts are similar they are being disposed of vide this common order.

3. The facts in brief are that the Complainant is father of the deceased Arunprabhu (hereinafter referred to as “the Life assured”) and he has taken two policies bearing No. 32115458 and 321302620 in the name of the Life Assured. Policy No. 32115458 was proposed by Mr. D. Chandran, father of the Life Assured, for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and the same is subject matter of CC No. 165/2010 and Policy No. 321302620 was proposed by Smt. C. Nilavathy, mother of the Life Assured, for a sum assured of Rs. 8,00,000/- and the same is subject matter of CC No. 166/2010. The first policy, proposed by father of the Life Assured, commenced from 28.03.2002 and was to mature on 28.03.2017 and the second policy, proposed by mother of the Life Assured commenced from 23.07.2002 and was to mature on 23.07.2017. It is averred that the Life Assured died on 30.10.2004 unnaturally and a criminal case under Section 304 IPC was registered at police station, Chennai. When the Complainant made a claim for the amounts under the said policies, he was informed that CBCID Report was required to decide for the settlement of the claim. In this connection LIC sent a letter dated 27.03.2006 to the Complainant and the Complainant vide letter dated 25.08.2009 submitted the CBCID Report. Thereafter LIC demanded the Transfer and Conduct Certificates of the Life Assured and vide letter dated 29.10.2009 the same was provided to LIC. The Complainant averred that despite submitting all the necessary documents, LIC did not settle the claim on one pretext or the other in spite of the Complainant sending repeated reminders vide letters dated 10.11.2009 and 05.12.2009. Hence the Complaint seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. Opposite Parties be directed to settle the policy claim of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the Complainant;

2. Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) being damages to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and

3. Opposite Parties be directed to pay the costs for the proceedings and

4. Such other relief or reliefs be awarded that the District Forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

4. LIC filed their reply before the District Forum stating that the Life Assured was an alcohol and drug addict even at the time of submitting the proposal form and that he was under the influence of liquor and drug during redemption and, therefore, discontinued his engineering studies at Sathyabama Engineering College, Chennai where he studied during the year 2003 and joined B.Com at V.O.C. Arts evening college in the year 2004 and the same was suppressed prior to obtaining the policy. It was averred that the Contract of Insurance is a contract of Uberrimma Fide i.e. of ‘Utmost Good Faith’ and it is the duty of the proposer to disclose all facts and information relating to the health of the Life Assured. It was further averred that had the Complainant furnished the information regar